Background: Single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has been reported as a safe and feasible technique. However, recent studies comparing single-port versus multiple-port robotic radical prostatectomy have displayed conflicting results. Objectives: To investigate the benefit of single-port robotic radical prostatectomy and the impact on outcome compared to multiple-port robotic radical prostatectomy. Methods: Based on PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. Finally, we considered the controlled studies with two cohorts (one cohort for single-port RARP and the other cohort for multiple-port RARP). For statistical analysis, Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.4 was used. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was employed to assess the risk of bias. Results: Five non-randomized controlled studies with 666 patients were included. Single-port robotic radical prostatectomy was associated with shorter hospital stays. Only 60.6% of single-port patients (109/180) required analgesia compared to 90% (224/249) of multiple-port patients (Z = 3.50; p = 0.0005; 95% CI 0.07:0.47). Opioid administration was also significantly lower in single-port patients, 26.2% (34/130) vs. 56.6% (77/136) (Z = 4.90; p < 0.00001; 95% CI 0.15:–0.44) There was no significant difference in operative time, blood loss, complication rate, positive surgical margin rate, or continence at day 90. Conclusion: The available data on single-port robotic radical prostatectomy is very limited. However, it seems comparable to the multiple-port platform in terms of short-term outcomes when performed with expert surgeons. Single-port prostatectomies might provide a shorter hospital stay and a lower requirement for opioids; however, randomized trials with long-term follow-up are mandatory for valid comparisons.

Epidemiologic studies have long demonstrated clear differences in incidence and progression of bladder cancer between genders suggesting that the mechanisms of development and progression in these tumors have a strong association with steroid hormonal pathways. Such observations led to preclinical studies investigating the role of androgen and estrogen receptors, as well as their cognate hormones in bladder cancer initiation and progression. Using various in vitro cell line assays and in vivo mouse models, studies have elucidated different mechanisms and signaling pathways through which these steroid receptors may participate in this disease. More recently, RNA expression data from multiple studies revealed a luminal subtype of bladder cancer that exhibited an estrogen receptor signaling pathway, making it a strong candidate for further consideration of targeted therapies in the future. Despite the promising preclinical data demonstrating potential roles for both antiandrogen and antiestrogen strategies targeting these pathways in different stages of bladder cancer, only two clinical trials are currently active and accruing patients for such clinical studies. Targeted therapies in bladder cancer are a large unmet need and have the potential to change treatment paradigms and improve oncological outcomes of patients with bladder cancer.

Introduction: Although there is evidence that hexaminolevulinate (HAL)-based transurethral bladder tumor resection (TURBT) improves the detection of Ta-T1 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) as well as carcinoma in situ there is uncertainty about its beneficial effects on progression. Material and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA statement to identify studies reporting on HAL- vs. white-light (WL-) based TUR-BT in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer between 2000 and 2016. A two-stage selection process was utilized to determine eligible studies. Of a total of 294 studies, 5 (4 randomized and one retrospective) were considered for final analysis. The primary objective was the rate of progression. Results: The median follow-up for patients treated with HAL- and WL-TURBT was 27.6 (1–55.1) and 28.9 (1–53) months, respectively. Of a total of 1301 patients, 644 underwent HAL- and 657 WL-based TURBT. Progression was reported in 44 of 644 patients (6.8%) with HAL- and 70 of 657 patients (10.7%) with WL-TURBT, respectively (median odds ratio: 1.64, 1.10–2.45 for HAL vs. WL; p = 0.01). Data on progression-free survival was reported in a single study with a trend towards improved survival for patients treated with HAL-TURBT ( p = 0.05). Conclusions: In this meta-analysis the rate of progression was significantly lower in patients treated with HAL- vs. WL-based TURBT. These results support the initiation of randomized trials on HAL with progression as primary endpoint.

Background: Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy is standard treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma; however, the vast majority of patients experience disease progression. As systemic therapy alone is rarely curative for the treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer, not only are new therapies needed but also refinement of general treatment principles. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the role of metastasectomy in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature regarding local treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. An online electronic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed to identify peer-reviewed articles. All procedures were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Information was then extracted including number of patients, gender, the site of the primary urothelial tumor, site of metastasis, chemotherapy before or after metastasectomy, overall survival (OS), and disease specific survival (DSS) after metastasectomy. A meta-analysis was performed with those studies with sufficient survival data to obtain pooled overall survival. The article quality was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook “risk of bias” tool. Results: Seventeen out of 3963 articles were eligible for review between 1990–2015, including a total of 412 patients. The mean time to recurrence after metastasectomy was 14.25 months. The overall survival from time of metastasectomy ranged from 2 to 60 months. Pooled analyses of studies reported survival data revealed an improved overall survival for patients treated with metastasectomy compared with non-surgical treatment of metastatic lesions (HR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49–0.81). All, except for three studies, were retrospective and non-randomized, leading to a high risk of bias associated with patient selection, patient attrition, and reporting. Such high potential of selection bias may lead to higher OS than expected. Additionally, treatment and outcome details reported across studies was highly variable. Conclusions: Limited conclusions can be drawn from the available literature exploring the role of metastasectomy in the management of metastatic urothelial cancer due to lack of uniform reporting elements and multiple sources of bias particularly related to a lack of prospective randomized trials. As a subset of patients treated with metastasectomy achieve durable disease control, this approach may be considered for select patients.